On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: > You've successfully hijacked a thread, unfortunately this > means that most people ignored your message for one of the following > reasons: > > 1) They were ignoring the thread that you hijacked, and your message > was threaded under it. Gee, I hope that isn't the case, considering that thread consisted of one message from me. ;) > You may be wondering, 'But how did *I* hijack a thread if I didn't even > know what it was!' Well, generally this happens when you're too lazy to > click 'compose message' or 'new message' and type in the address, instead > you press the reply button in your reader, then change the subject of the > message, thinking that you've created a whole new message (while saving > yourself the effort of typing in 'tclug-list at mn-linux.org', i know, it's > taxing!). Unfortunately your email program is sneaky, and knows that you > pressed the reply button, and still puts that magic 'This message is in > reply to that message' header in there! tclug-list at mn-linux.org? You might want to modify your form letter for the TCWUG, Matt. > These are examples of thread hijacking, and a mail reader that 'threads', > or groups messages, in the example you can see that 'Bob Tanner' started > a new thread with the subject 'greyhatpak additions?', then a person > named 'Andrew Nemchenko' "hijacked" the thread, and wanted to say something > about 'some small OT but usefull news', needless to say, he got flamed =) I suspect Bob started that thread to discuss tools for finding open mail relays, so he could spam people. That slimeball... Post trimmed for brevity; I don't recall if Chewie's on this list. Jima